tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post767831617180633555..comments2024-02-24T03:34:18.060-05:00Comments on Stealing Commas: Why the destruction of the first Death Star doesn't leave most mourningchris the cynichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06872875475212333027noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-77050008079548207342012-07-25T12:16:29.475-04:002012-07-25T12:16:29.475-04:00I meant to respond to this so long ago, sorry for ...I meant to respond to this so long ago, sorry for the delay if you're even still around.<br /><br />Maybe I just need to watch Star Wars again, but I don't think we are shown that Vader is willing and able to kill subordinates in the first movie. At that point he's still on a leash, as Leia puts it, and I don't think the killing starts until the next movie when Vader is allowed off-leash as a result of his previous leash holder dying in the destruction of the Death Star.<br /><br />If we had seen Vader killing for insubordination in the first movie, especially if someone had expressed doubt about blowing up planets and wound up dead as a result, with horrified colleagues looking on, I think that would have changed things a lot.chris the cynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06872875475212333027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-92199541636344514672012-07-09T20:22:33.642-04:002012-07-09T20:22:33.642-04:00"Or what if there were even a hint that those..."Or what if there were even a hint that those affected by the blowing up of the Death Star weren't there of their own free will?"<br /><br />Well, we are at least shown that Vader is perfectly capable of and willing to kill subordinates at the slightest provocation; it's hardly a stretch to assume that by the time a soldier (who may have signed up for different reasons) realizes the true nature of the Death Star and what it's intended for, he's already in deep enough that trying to back out would result in execution. This is especially true because remember, up until the first few scenes of the movie (when we're informed the Senate was dissolved) many soldiers on the Death Star might have considered themselves loyal to the Republic and assumed that the Senate would never allow the weapon to be actually used as anything but an inactive deterrent, etc, etc.<br /><br />By the time they realized otherwise, things were already at the point where all orders would carry the implicit message of "or die."<br /><br />You could go on to argue that it's cowardice that keeps them from resisting, of course, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that there's at least some coercion involved when the price of any sort of failure is shown to be death.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-74312753989876257132012-07-09T16:15:24.619-04:002012-07-09T16:15:24.619-04:00I agree with your overall point, and believe it co...I agree with your overall point, and believe it covers a good range of ground. <br /><br />I'm not sure how much of the following argument I agree with myself(Just War Theory is still a bit more grey than I'd like):<br /><br />Shouldn't this also fall under an 'acceptable targets in war' discussion? The Death Star is a military base writ large. Military forces by their nature are legitimate targets in warfare. Yes, any military base or structure will contain some non-combatants(janitors, etc), but the primary purpose of an attack on the Death Star is not against the non-combatants. Soldiers are assumed to be willing to die for their cause- in practice no battle or war will entirely avoid casualties or deaths even on the winning side. Anyone going into a war has a non-trivial chance to die.<br /><br />One of the parts of Just War is that you don't intentionally target civilians and non-combatants. It tends to get hand-waved more than followed unfortunately (even and especially in WWII, like massive bombing campaigns against cities). It gets used to excuse collateral damage- not every bomb or explosion is going to land on target, regardless of the portrayal of laser-guided munitions from the first Gulf War. <br /><br />If an enemy decides to base their troops in and around hospitals or civilian populations, then things devolve into a hostage situation with no good answers. On one hand, their military chose that location and put those civilians at risk; on the other the attacking side still directly causes those civilian deaths.<br /><br />Contrast with the target of the Death Star- an entire planet, with assumed billions of non-combatants. Most of whom were probably apathetic to the rebellion if not supporters of Imperial power.Kellandrosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-67441521047324877932012-07-03T03:22:27.523-04:002012-07-03T03:22:27.523-04:00Initially I wrote up a comment disagreeing, but re...Initially I wrote up a comment disagreeing, but realized that I actually agreed more than I initially thought.<br /><br />The question “what about the good guys on the Death Star?” doesn't occur in the viewer's mind while watching the movie because the movie itself is not interested in the question. The movie never shows a single scene that would cause a viewer to wonder if everyone in the Empire is as evil as those in power. The movie devotes its screen time elsewhere; so in this sense the film dismisses moral ambiguity by not giving it any screen time. Negative information, as I think you would say, dismisses certain perspectives by not feeding them, so to speak. <br /><br />Of course, once we have our Clerks-style conversations and once we sit back and think about the movie, we can look at the movie from different points of view. The movie leaves a lot of empty room so that we can discuss different interpretations of the scenes (for example, maybe the reason the Stormtroopers were such terrible marksmen is because they were secretly allowing Leia and the rebels to escape), but in terms of the movie's own concerns, moral ambiguity just isn't one of them.<br /><br />So the movie won't arouse mourning in us, it ignores the question. The only time someone would mourn the destruction of the Death Star is if the viewer themselves brought something to the table that made them feel distressed at the destruction of the Death Star. And, much like you said, it is because we are never shown anything to cause us to question their loyalty to the alliance, that we are predisposed to just file all of the Death Star's crew under the “bad guy” category.GTWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075430279061133376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-48287327211034022232012-07-01T00:04:00.872-04:002012-07-01T00:04:00.872-04:00I think this debate results from erroneously assum...I think this debate results from erroneously assuming that these are exclusive viewpoints. They're not; judged from a Watsonian perspective, the crew of the Death Star are arguably morally culpable for the destruction of Alderaan. (What about the catering staff? Janitors? The Death Star is enormous, more like a small country than a ship; is every inhabitant of a nation culpable for atrocities its military commits? Is every member of the military?)<br /><br />Regardless of those questions, from a Doylist perspective there *is no* Death Star crew. The audience feels the destruction of Alderaan as a bad thing not because it is a horrific war crime that kills billions, because for the audience those billions don't exist. Leia and Ben do exist for us, because they are characters; they suffer when Alderaan is destroyed, they feel bad, and therefore we feel that it is a bad thing. There is no depiction of any character feeling bad about the destruction of the Death Star--they are all elated--and therefore so are we.<br /><br />However, as I said, these are not opposed readings. The people of Alderaan do not exist; they were never filmed, and thus logically cannot exist within the movie. No matter how much you watch it, how carefully you comb through it, you will not find any of them (except Leia, of course). The people of Alderaan logically must exist; the movie makes no sense without them. Leia must have family, friends, a culture, so that Tarkin can threaten her with their destruction.<br /><br />Both these statements are true, because they are true within different contexts.Froborrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08782366056731381450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-44377552136506925992012-06-25T09:29:51.778-04:002012-06-25T09:29:51.778-04:00I believe I see your point, and this is where dele...I believe I see your point, and this is where deleted scenes are best left deleted. You've seen the Biggs clip? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsDE7o_o26E if not.) He's pretty much the only significant person we see who straddles more than one faction - he's going to the Imperial Naval Academy, but he's still planning to be a rebel. That complicates things hugely, precisely because he's someone who's a little more subtle than "my side good, other side bad"; he can at least pretend to get along with the other side for a while, which is more than any of the major characters ever do.<br /><br />What's left in the film, with Biggs excised, is: you are on a side, you are blatantly on that side, and you stay on that side. There are no Imperial admirals who defect, any more than there are traitors in the Rebel camp. What I'm trying to get at, I think, is that it would be <i>narratively</i> impossible for the Death Star crew to rebel and therefore one can't castigate them for their lack of rebellion.<br /><br />(Which turns into the sort of character-aware-of-narrative thing that you do so well...)Firedrakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-78687472640939098702012-06-25T08:59:50.829-04:002012-06-25T08:59:50.829-04:00I think that kind of skips the point though. If t...I think that kind of skips the point though. If there were a line that said most of the workers on the Death Star were slaves they would still be cardboard cutouts, but the destruction of the Death Star would be judged quite differently in light of their deaths.<br /><br />The population of Alderaan is composed of cardboard cutouts, it's destruction is judged differently.<br /><br />Cardboard cutouts or not, they're getting judged by the viewer, and they're getting judged for what they did or didn't do.<br /><br />-<br /><br />As for the odds that no one has moral qualms, I don't know, but I think the population of the Empire makes it vaguely more likely. How many people on earth could be found who would be that way after imperial indoctrination? How many earths would it take to have enough such people to fill a station with them? The Empire includes a lot of planets.<br /><br />But more than that, suspension of disbelief and judgement based on actions are not mutually exclusive.chris the cynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06872875475212333027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3889388775673754833.post-2521205303861788372012-06-25T05:58:07.184-04:002012-06-25T05:58:07.184-04:00I think the difficulty is that you're ascribin...I think the difficulty is that you're ascribing moral agency to cardboard cutouts. Yes, <i>if</i> they were real people, they would all be monsters - and how likely is that, that you'd get the thousands of people needed to crew such a vessel and none of them would have any moral qualms? But they aren't real people. They are a painted background for the heroes to be heroic against. The heroes have to shoot unambiguous bad guys, so there must be unambiguous bad guys for them to shoot. Without the Death Star, there is no Luke Skywalker Hero of the Rebellion - there's just Luke Skywalker Discontented Moisture Farmer.Firedrakenoreply@blogger.com